Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 1

Circular reference
The source used to confirm her being a member of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority makes reference to her wikipedia page. This makes for a nice circular reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.5.217 (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, per WP:WPNOTRS. I've removed it. Thanks. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

biracial
" She is biracial with a black mother and a Dutch-Irish father."

Really? There is only one race, the human one. I deleted this sensless "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.190.121 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think the Neanderthals were part of the human race? Just askin'. Wythy (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia uses 'factual sources' to create articles. A factual source of Markle's ethnic background seems to now be included in the article. This factual source quotes directly from Markle herself, who seems to have written the article herself, in a very famous lifestyle magazine. If it is to be removed, please explain why? since a factual source has been given. If you are on a misguided quest to remove all mentions of mixed race from sections of Wikipedia's notable persons, might I suggest you ask the owner of Wikipedia for permission first. Confusionincode (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

South-Africa is also Africa, and many whites live(d) there...so by definition (I know, no big skill in WP in definitions) "Afro-american" does not necessarily mean, that her mother is "black". B.t.w. with Markles statement ("caucasian") one can easily see, how ill-minded PC is in the US. Causcasus is a region, that is not even fully on European territory. Most caucasian inhabitants are of turk descent. So US political correctness turns Europeans to turk descent? What an arrogant way of labelling over 300 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.98.124 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are interpreting the terms Afro-american (sic) and caucasian literally and are thus mistaken. (This is a mistake made by native English speakers as well as non-native speakers such as you.) --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Words do not necessarily "mean what they mean". A ladybird is an insect. A peanut is a bean. Homophobic people have bigotry more than fear (if we really dissect the word, you could say "homo"phobia is not the fear of the same). In the United States, people of a European appearance do generally call themselves Caucasian, despite having no link to said mountain range. They may also see people of the Caucasus, like the Tsarnaev brothers, an the "other". Valentina Cardoso (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Letter to Hilary
If she was born in 81 how did she write a letter to Hillary to change a soap ad at 11 - Bill wasn't elected until 1993? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrst (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's how it is with birthdays. A person born in August 1981 turns 12 in August 1993. On 20 January 1993, that person is 11 years old. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Graduation
There can be no doubt that Markle graduated in 2003 form Northwestern Univeristy - Markle herself is quoted in the University's own newsletter that she graduated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.161.47 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Anyone who argues that she didn't graduate based on the fact that she was a "candidate" for her degree in the commencement booklet obviously doesn't know how university degrees work. In order to be listed as a candidate, you have to apply to graduate. It isn't just a list of people who've taken courses but haven't yet graduated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.54.236 (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The ""Dialogue - 2013" (PDF). School of Communication at Northwestern" should suffice for a reliable source as an alumni of the school. I cleaned the unnecessary over statement of sources within the section. For those who want that one definitive reliable source linking all the necessary claims in one neat little package (graduate of / degree / etc); it's almost impossible to retrieve this kind of information on a celebrity BLP and most of the time it is merely stated within the "Education" or "Early Life" section without any reliable source at all. If it raises further contest, bring it to the Talk Page for consensus; and question the merit / warrant for its inclusion at all. Maineartists (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meghan Markle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104004041/https://familysearch.org/ark%3A/61903/1%3A1%3AVGLK-V9T to https://familysearch.org/ark%3A/61903/1%3A1%3AVGLK-V9T

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry
Should this tale of an ancestor in the service of the Royal Family be omitted until it is reported by competent sources? It's just Mail, Express, Star and Mirror at the moment, which for the Information of non-UK users, are unreliable tabloids Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources which remain are primary and do not mention Markle Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Cory Vitielllo.
85.255.232.216 would like to add in information about Markle relationship with Cory Vitielllo. Unfortunately they haven't been providing a reference with the information they have added which has always resulted in them being reverted. There are sources about their relationship but personal I'm not sure it is relevant to the article to list each relationships on WP:BLP pages. The one with her husband is relevant because she got married and devoiced and of course the one with Prince Harry but want to avoid listing everything WP:GOSSIP. If others disagree, then I'm happy for the information to be added providing reliable sources are referenced when it is added. NZFC (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've requested semi-protection for this page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced it's relevant. Without a source, it should obviously be removed. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the protection. There are sources about it, but I'm just not sure it is relevant to list personally. NZFC  (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see sources in The Daily Mail, The Sun and other tabloids. But I see no reason to trust them. Let alone to establish noteworthiness. I see a LA Times blog but that also cites the Daily Mail as a source.


 * The only reliable source I have found so far is this article by the Daily Telegraph. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah it’s only reliable source but even then it still reads like a tabloid in that it seems to only be a story because she may have been dating this guy when she met the Prince. I’m still of the opinion that it’s more gossip than encyclopedia. NZFC  (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Very concerned you will allow references from sources such as People.com, Hollywood Reporter and E! but class a UK broadsheet and not a tabloid. Acknowledge no reference to engagement so appreciate that should be deleted however subjective edits that whitewash what might be construed as negative towards the subject matter appears to suggest Wiki & its editors are in the pocket of MM & KP PR which is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.144.177 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, while I appreciate where you are coming from please be careful of accusations. With regards to Biographies of living persons WP:BLP, Wikipedia has to be very careful with information that is added to these articles. It would pay to have a look at WP:BLPGOSSIP in regards to adding this information "whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject". That is why I have opened a discussion here for other editors to discuss adding the information or not, it is not about censorship (hell I live in NZ so have nothing to do with MM or KP PR) but about if the information is relevant for an encyclopedia NZFC  (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Noted however I argue that a 2 year + relationship is significant in a persons biography and is relevant in this individuals case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.144.177 (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"Humanitarianism" in the opening description
The inclusion of "humanitarian" in the opening description of Meghan Markle is entirely inappropriate. She is almost exclusively known as a model and actress, and more recently due to her relationship. This is a relatively recent addition to the article and should clearly be removed, and perhaps a mention of it made. Most well known people in the public eye do some form of humanitarian or charity work - but would we include that in the opening sentence of Cristiano Ronaldo's article? Even the article used as a citation are primarily about her work as an actress, or Prince Harry's partner. She is not known as a "humanitarian" at all.

Multiple editors have complained of this addition, yet the same editors repeatedly reintroduce it. It is clearly an attempt to mislead the reader into believing the subject is something she is not. It is a clear deletion from the opening section. 89.242.253.34 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017
change: She has been in a relationship with Prince Harry of Wales since June 2016

to: She has been in a relationship with Prince Harry since June 2016

why: Prince Harry is NOT prince of Wales. Only number 1 in the line of succesion is prince/princess of Wales! 91.198.168.8 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Prince Harry is correctly referred to as Prince Henry of Wales, he remains so until he receives his own title (normally on the eve of marriage). However, it is unusual to refer to Prince Harry as Prince Harry of Wales, it is normally either Prince Harry (informal and common use) or Prince Henry of Wales (formal). White&#38;BlueWasp (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I have removed the Prince Harry of Wales in the lead, feel free to re-add it, if it is correct. regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Film anti social
Currently her wiki page says she had a part in 2015 film anti social. But Anti social was made 2013. Sequel Anti social ll was made in 2015. I'm not sure if the date is wrong or the film, whether it should say anti social ll. I've looked at both films in IMD but ahe isn't mentioned. Maybe shes uncredited ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ HardeeHar (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * She is on the IMDb at www.imdb.com/title/tt3475596/. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * yeah you're right. Sorry I got the film mixed up with similar named film: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardeeHar (talk • contribs)

2014 United Service Organizations Tour Photo
Could this photo add to the encyclopedic content of article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thsmi002 (talk • contribs)
 * I am not really sure where it would be relevant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought perhaps in the "other works" section where a mention about her involvement in the tour could be included. I did not feel strongly either way which is why I decided to put it hear and let other editors evaluate. I am not sure what her level of involvement was with USO or how notable it truly was.




 * Agree that relevance needs to be stronger, otherwise this is just one of countless random "snapshots". 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5BE:8B3:6285:3518 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017
Please:
 * Add 'lock' icon to this locked page
 * Add source, re: engagement mentioned in lead; e.g.:
 * Provide wikilink:  2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5BE:8B3:6285:3518 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, though the third request was already done when I got here. Thank you for helping to improve this article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

humanitarian?
I didn't realize she worked with AIDS patients in Africa, served soup to the hungry in L.A. and brokered peace between Israel and the Palestinians. She's an actress, not a humanitarian. She has done absolutely no notable work in that regard at all, aside from a shambolic (and honorary) title from the U.N. She's a minor, second-rate actress playing supporting role in a cable TV show and current girlfriend of a British prince, nothing more. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A private company is continuously editing this page to paint her as a humanitarian. She is clearly known for being and actress and model. Being a good will ambassador is her using her fame in acting and modelling to promote the work of IOs and NGOs. This does not change her profession nor what she is know for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed this addition - which is relatively recent and smacks of promotion of the subject. I agree it is entirely inappropriate for the opening sentence. She is known primarily as a model and actress, not for philanthropy/humanitarian work. We wouldn't include that role in the lead sentence of Cristiano Ronaldo or Bradd Pitt, despite that being citable for both. Most famous people do some form of this work. 89.242.253.34 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I was genuinely rejoicing for the youngish couple until I saw the word 'humanitarian' here and skepticism set in. If the editors who insist on including this term here think they are burnishing her public image they should think again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.130.180 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Toronto
She seems to live in Toronto - but no info about that here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.165.22 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I added that today, with citation; and the fact that she recently moved out. Will live at Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Hussey, Esquire
"Esquire" is neither a substantive title nor an honour. It's a courtesy title, an honourific, used at the time as an unofficial title for a person with a high social rank (but lacking a substantive title). As for a US context, I cannot find any such reference that he was involved in the legal profession, other than being of the council of New Hampshire, but even if he was it would not warrant it to be included. It is worth noting that Hussey was a soldier. As a result of all of the above, I have removed it. UaMaol (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree; it made no sense to add Esquire. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hussey and his other colleagues  are clearly described as "Esquire" in Robertson's  1834  book  which is referenced. This was an automatic title if you were an "officer of the crown": Hussey was appointed by King Charles II   to "...govern Hampton, New Hampshire...".   The courtesy title  is evident in the historic resources  describe Hussey. Leave in of course. Srbernadette (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, a commonly used term in 1834 and if you are using it in a quote from the book, that's fine. But since it is no longer commonly used, and since we are writing this in 2017, the term should not be routinely dropped into a sentence. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Succession to the British Throne
In terms of succession to the British throne, Meghan Markle would have to have at least four people to die once she marries Prince Harry, including her husband, if I understand the citation correctly. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145991/spectator-opposed-meghan-markle-marrying-prince-harry kencf0618 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are not understanding it correctly, or the source is wrong but it is worded oddly, or you have made a mistake in your comment. Markle will become Queen (consort) only when her husband is King, when he dies she doesn't become a Queen of her own but a widow. The four people in line are Prince Charles, Prince William, and the two children of Prince William (soon to be three with the recent pregnancy of Kate Middelton). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected! kencf0618 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Meghan is not and will not be in the line of succession, her future husband is. He is currently 5th, and will be 6th after the Cambridge's royal baby is born. Arg Matey (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct Arg Matey Someone who marries into monarchy does not get into the line of succession. And Harry is a LONG way down the list.

Here's the line of succession to the British throne

1. The Prince of Wales 2. The Duke of Cambridge 3. Prince George of Cambridge 4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 5. Prince Harry of Wales

and the list goes on and on. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/27/heres-line-succession-to-british-throne.html Peter K Burian (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Humanitarian as an occupation
I don't see how one can call "humanitarian" an occupation. Looking through some of the articles listed in Category:Humanitarians I couldn't find one person for whom "humanitarian" was listed in the infobox as an occupation. Nixon Now (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I found this a little odd too. The fact that it's probably the most criticised topic on this talk page and it's a stay is a bit of a joke really! UaMaol (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree too; if that content is in the article, revise it so it says retired/volunteer work. That is not an occupation either per se, but closer to accurate. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The thing is the fact that she is/will be a humanitarian gets stronger and stronger. When originally added it was sourced and after discussion was decided as keep. At the time it wasn't that strong, now in the latest information with her retiring from acting she states that "They talked about forging a new role for themselves as a couple, focusing on the humanitarian causes over which they first bonded.", I think like Catherine Middleton, you will see her doing more and more charity work. As for being in the infobox, I don't really mind either way but I do think people can distinguish the difference as an occupation and years active from her acting career. NZFC  (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I revised it to Volunteering; in truth she is already retired and doing nothing but volunteer work from now on. What was Princess Diana's "occupation"?? Peter K Burian (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because other exists isn't an argument for what you do here. Saying that, I had a look at what can be included in the Infobox Person and there is a field for "known_for = " I would suggest we add the humanitarian work there as an also to her acting. NZFC  (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that "humanitarian" should be in the occupation section?? If not, please say so here. User:NZ Footballs Conscience just reverted my good faith edit so humanitarian is back under Occupation. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter K Burian, I do beleive it should be in the infobox as it is from two WP:RS, however as above your post, I have given another option that I think helps it fit better. I'm happy for it to be taken from occupation and have a new field with known for. NZFC  (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed at, , and. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply to User:NZ Footballs Conscience ... the problem is that she currently does have an occupation; she will transition out of it after the wedding in spring 2018. So, dropping Occupation now would be premature. It's just that some of us cannot understand how "humanitarian" can be an occupation. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter K Burian, I'm not suggesting taking out the occupation field, it should stay with her occupation of acting and modelling. What I'm suggesting is to take out Humantarian out of occupation and create an extra field using the Known As field and putting it there in the infobox. NZFC  (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, good idea User:NZ Footballs Conscience. Known for: Humanitarian endeavors. Can you make the revision? Every time I try a major edit like that in an info box, the entire formatting gets screwed up; so I don't want to try it again. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

From Humanitarianism .. is an active belief in the value of human life, whereby humans practice benevolent treatment and provide assistance to other humans, in order to better humanity for both moral and logical reasons. It is the philosophical belief in movement toward the improvement of the human race in a variety of areas, used to describe a wide number of activities relating specifically to human welfare. A practitioner is known as a humanitarian. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * as per everything added to Wikipedia, it is what a reliable source says and both sources provided state that she does humanitarian work. NZFC  (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * She does volunteer work for humanitarian agencies. We all agree. I don't really consider Volunteer as an occupation but I could live with that. I just don't see how Humanitarian (someone who practices a belief) can be an occupation. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

All good, thanks for the discussion. I have changed it from occupation and put it in the infobox as known for now. NZFC (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well done. I too would spell it "endeavours" but she is American so I suspect it should be spelled "endeavors". Well, in truth, someone will probably revert your edit. That is common in this article. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't think about American spelling, you are right. Will change that since she is American. NZFC  (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we are both from a Commonwealth country; I often need to remind myself to use American spelling for certain articles, and "commonwealth" spelling in others. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Early life edit
The article claims that her father's profession resulted in her visiting a TV sit-com set. This is at best an extremely awkward way to say that she visited the set her father (apparently(?)) worked on. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of professions which might be found on a set of a show, claiming it was his profession rather than his specific work seems wrong-headed to me.75.90.35.157 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmmm .. I read it again; seems fine as is, IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017
There was a line about her and Prince Harry breaking up, probably by someone jealous of their relationship. 128.62.16.200 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just vandalism, has been reverted and user warned. NZFC  (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Does Markle have ANY occupation
As I see it, she is a retired actor who is doing volunteer work for humanitarian causes. She completed filming the last episode of Suits and moved out of her apartment, for London. Is there other acting work she will still be doing?

Although, technically she will not retire until her marriage. Then, he occupation should definitely not include acting.

Meghan Markle will quit acting following engagement to Prince Harry ''Markle told the BBC she will be "transitioning" out of her acting career, confirming she will not be returning to the eighth season of "Suits." Experts told us it is expected that Markle will follow in the footsteps of Grace Kelly, who had a successful acting career but gave it up to become to Princess of Monaco when she married Prince Rainier III in 1956.'' http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/27/meghan-markle-will-quit-acting-following-engagement-to-prince-harry-royal-experts-say.html Peter K Burian (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You would keep her occupation even though she has (or is) retiring, you would just have an end date for years active. NZFC  (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct; she will not retire until after the wedding next spring. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, posing in front of cameras all day with a smile regardless of how you feel isn't acting is it? At 36, if we assume the couple wants children, she'll be/they'll be trying to get a bun in the oven a.s.a.p., imho. If I sell a single photograph, then I'm a professional photographer until either I announce I've "retired" or I die. At least, technically. (Even if I'm not ACTIVE in that profession.)75.90.35.157 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is "Yes. Socialite." Just like Wallis Simpson. Eric Cable ! Talk 00:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017
...was an man of African descent who was trafficked and forced to work as a slave on Georgia plantations before being emancipated... 2610:20:2018:100:0:0:100:4 (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, your edit request is unclear. What part of the article do you want edited? NZFC  (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

German descent
MARKLE is a typical German surname, does anyone know, if she is of German descent? 91.65.17.77 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Markle is not a German surname. See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markle
 * Markel IS a German surname. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markel--Achim Hering (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

My guess, her ancestors came from Germany and settled down in the Netherlands. There is no big difference between Germans and Dutch people. Shhh don't tell them. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.190.121 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Markle is not related to Mrs Merkel. The Dutch don't like the Germans. The Germans think Holland is part of Germany. Wythy (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Believe me, no German thinks Holland is part of Germany.--2001:A61:2085:9F01:4B7:795D:4475:3C63 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Humanitarian, Calligraphy, Model Comment
Can we please get some consensus on this? I can kind of under stand her being a humanitarian as she is using her image as a star to work for World Vision, but even that is a bit of a stretch for her to be known by. I don't agree with User:193.138.94.10 adding that she is known for calligrapher and modelling, those are hobbies same as the business she is running for her clothing. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

She is clearly most know for being an actress. Modelling seems to be the second-most important factor in her fame. Humanitarian is as much of a stretch as calligraphy, so I suggest to remove both. Neither have contributed to her fame before she was famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that, not sure how much modelling she has done so others can debate that stay there. NZ Footballs Conscience  (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The logical move would be to move it out of the lead. Simply mention calligraphy in her early life and humanitarian as part of her later career. She is the most known for her acting and modelling so leave those in lead. We should not delete content for which there are reliable sources. Giving them due weight or reducing the weight given to them is an organizational concern. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with removing it from the infobox. She maybe well-known as an actress but that is obviously not all she does there is a full subsection on her other works. The infobox and the lead to the most part should summarize the entire article not just the parts she is well known for. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See for example, featured article on Emma Watson. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Humanitarian is sourced from a WP:RS. We should not remove it because it our WP:OR say it is the second or third most important factor in fame, or that is i just a hobby. However if it is WP:UNDUE please prove this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
 * I have just noted your comment here. IT is entirely inappropriate to include humanitarianism in the opening sentence, as this mislead the reader into believing this is a significant role for the subject - it is not. IT is included in the info box and this suffices. You wouldn't include this in the opening sentence for Cristiano Ronaldo, so why here? 89.242.253.34 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or rather in this case doesn't exist is not an argument. What sources do you have saying that her role as a humanitarian is less significant than others? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64, are you paid to change this wikipedia page?

Your arguments make no sense. Because a tabloid celebrity magazine consider her a humanitarian does not mean that this is the reason why she is famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) The argument that there is a reference also makes no sense, since you have deleted the referenced facts that she is a calligrapher and a model — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am not paid to edit this page.
 * AFAIK, Vogue is not a tabloid. I would venture to say it is a reliable source. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, I did not do that. In fact, you did yourself. I only did this. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I reinserted the Sun reference then for model and calligraphy work. I think the box is fine like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.94.10 (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Sun is a tabloid. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed the mention of humanitarianism in the lead sentence - which is relatively recent addition and smacks of promotion of the subject. I agree it is entirely inappropriate for the opening sentence. She is known primarily as a model and actress, not for philanthropy/humanitarian work. We wouldn't include that role in the lead sentence of Cristiano Ronaldo or Bradd Pitt, despite that being citable for both. Most famous people do some form of this work, as does this subject. 89.242.253.34 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, should be removed. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Other work (Apache HTTP Server)
The article currently incorrectly states that "Markle is an early investor in Apache HTTP Server, and that her work on Suits are still hidden in the lines of code". This is unsubstantiated by any known source, and the currently cited source (Apache Server 2.0: A Beginner's Guide) was published in 2001, making it impossible for the author to know or state that there are references to Suits in the source code, since Suits started airing a decade later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewbutton (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, I can't find any references to this online. (Though it's not an easy thing to check - given Harry's previous occupation as an Apache helicopter pilot there are a TON of hits for a search that includes that term.) The sentence has a citation but it is to a user manual - not sure why such a book would talk about investors. On the whole this seems extremely fishy. I'm going to remove it until and unless a more clear and definitive source is provided. - EronTalk 05:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This information was added by . --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw that. Their contribs show ten minor edits (just enough to get around semiprotection) and three instances inserting this same passage in this article. Like I say, fishy. - EronTalk 18:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Trevor Engelson
There are now lots of RS about Trevor Engelson. Shouldn't his article be re-created?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it just in regards to his former marriage, or independent notability? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comparison to Wallis Simpson
It's in the news. It has four cites. It was deleted without reason. Eric Cable ! Talk 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it the first time, but I did remove the Wallis Simpson comparison after it was added back to the lead. I don't think it's appropriate for the lead this time, and a one sentence comparison without context didn't feel like it fit in personal life. I do think a short paragraph explaining that recent changes in British laws make Markle's status as a divorcee and her Catholic upbringing less of an issue now would be appropriate in the body of the article. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just tabloid stuff here (and in no way belongs in the lead in any event - its not lead material for her biography) -- curious why one would put that stuff here in any case, instead of in Harry's biography - he is the royal. Moreover, there are multiple couples (including his own father) and ways in which the situations are contrasted -- not just compared, so it cannot be phrased like it was, regardless (and then all that would need explanation), so not worth it  --  but perhaps someone wants to create an article of Divorce and the Royals.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017
It's Prince Harry, not Prince Henry under Ms. Markel's photograph. 14.142.23.34 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User is talking about in the info box under partner, it lists Prince Harry as Henry. However he is formally known as Prince Henry so that is correct and shouldn't be changed. NZFC  (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How about adding a short explanatory footnote? I think this has already come up multiple times on this talk page today, and a lot of readers might also question the Prince Henry/Harry distinction. Knope7 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

✅ Donama (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How did she and Prince Harry meet?
The article should touch on this. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This came up in today's interviews. I agree it makes sense to add this to the article, so it's there now. Knope7 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks!  32.209.55.38 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Prince Harry
The fact that she's Prince Harry's current girlfriend keeps getting removed from the introductory biography. Why? Chelsy Davy has a Wikipedia page on the sheer account that she was once Harry's girlfriend, Markle is the first of Harry's partner's in well over a decade the Palace released an official statement about confirming their relationship. It seems to me that this is significant enough to include the line in her introductory bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marser11 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Several months later, I think it's even more clear that this should be mentioned somehow in the lede. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 07:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ...especially as she would not qualify for a wiki-page otherwise. A notable actress she is not. Valetude (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with mentioning the relationship with Prince Harry in the lead. I will add it is not accurate to say she is not notable actress. She has had a Wikipedia article for 10 years, long before her relationship with Harry began. Knope7 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The "Duke of Windsor" problem
As she's an American divorcee, something that's totally okay in other circumstances, will they get the full royal wedding treatment with tea towels and a formal parade to St.Someone's cathedral and a photo op on the Royal balcony? Will she become the "Duchess of Wherever" if HM decides to create Harry Duke of same?

Her stepmother-in-law-elect, the Duchess of Cornwall, is not an HRH, nor does she ever use her honorific "Princess of Wales" title. There was a bruhaha over whether or not she will be recognized as Queen Consort when the time comes.

This has been a problem for centuries. Now that it's public, there should be a section on it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Camilla is a Royal Highness. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Camilla does actually hold the style 'H.R.H'. If Harry is given a Dukedom (which is often given to British Princes when they marry, but not always) then his wife will automatically hold the female version of it. How a big a marriage ceremony they will have is partly up to the couple themselves. Princes Charles and Princes Anne are both divorcees who remarried, so it is much less of an issue for the British Royal family now.  Part of the issue at the time of Edward and Mrs Simpson was that the Church of England (of which the British Monarch is Supreme Governor) strictly forbade remarriage for divorcees at that time - neither conducting or recognising them. That has now changed, a COE church marriage may be possible, or they could opt for a civil marriage recognised by the church (like Charles and Camilla).  Basically, it's a non-issue now. Indisciplined (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

British princes are traditionally given a title when they marry. The younger sons of the monarch are usually made a duke, although Prince Edward was just made an earl, so she has the serious chance of becoming a duchess or a countess. However, I have just looked into this, as a result of the exceptional longevity of Elizabeth II it seems to be completely unprecedented for the younger son of the heir apparent to marry. As Markle is a divorcee I don't think the Church of England would marry her, but the Church of Scotland would. They could go for a relatively low-key wedding in Scotland, like Princess Anne's 2nd marriage or Zara Phillips, or they could go for a big wedding in somewhere like Glasgow Cathedral or St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh. PatGallacher (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Church of England now permits divorced persons to marry in a Church of England church, this was voted and approved by the General Synod of the Church of England in 2002. There is however the caveat that the resident priest in charge of the church does have discretion to refuse the marriage if they so wish, dependent on 'individual circumstances'. In the case of Prince Harry and Megan Markle there will be no problems with the Dean of Westminster or the Dean of Windsor permiting the marriage, as both postions owe direct allegiance to the Sovereign. Both have approved, and indeed the venue will be St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Ds1994 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that, although Prince Edward was 'only' made an Earl, it was announced by Buckingham Palace that Prince Edward will be made the Duke of Edinburgh, when that current title finally reverts to the Crown. This will only happen when the current Duke of Edinburgh has died, and the Prince of Wales becomes King. It remains to be seen if a similar approach is used again for Prince Harry, but at the moment it has been suggested he will be made Duke of Sussex of the second creation (the first creation also being a Royal Dukedom and is therefore considered a royal title).Ds1994 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Known for"
The listing at "Known for" says humanitarian work, but that's not what the newspapers are calling her, they are saying she's "Rachel Zane" (Suits), so shouldn't that be what the entry says? -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

She is divorced and in England that is still an issue for older people
ABC News: ''Any true royal watcher or fan of "The Crown" is well aware that the engagement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is not the first time an American divorcee has vied to become a member of the British royal family. The last time this happened, the king abdicated his thrown and the United Kingdom was launched into a constitutional crisis'' .... Times have changed. Markle, an American actress and philanthropist whose first marriage ended in divorce, apparently received the blessing of the queen and royal family.http://abcnews.go.com/International/meghan-markle-divorced-american-marry-member-royal-family/story?id=51407232

Is Markle’s status as a divorcée that big a deal? An article in Mcleans, Canada's national news magazine says:

Divorce is a touchy subject for the royal family. Markle divorced from a previous marriage that ended in 2013. The last time a royal thought about marrying an American divorcée was in 1937 and it became an international scandal. King Edward VIII tied the knot with American socialite Wallis Simpson, a two-time divorcée, but the two never had an official engagement. The royal family refused to accept Simpson as the next queen, and some Brits suspected she was a Nazi spy. Stung by the disapproval, Edward renounced the throne within a year of being crowned and later married Simpson. Less dramatically, Harry’s father, Prince Charles, remarried in 2005 after his divorce with Princess Diana in 1996 (his bride, Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Duchess of Cornwall, had divorced 10 years earlier).

What it does not mention is that Prince Charles wanted to marry Camilla Parker Bowles when he was a young man, but the Queen rejected the plan because Camilla was already a divorcee. So, instead, he married Diana. After Diana died, he did marry Camilla since by then, the Queen was willing to allow it.
 * The article doesn't and shouldn't mention that because it's wrong. Camilla was divorced in 1995, the year before Charles and Diana divorced. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC
 * The article is also wrong in that Edward VIII was never 'crowned'. The Coronation date was set in May 1937, but his brother George VI was crowned in his stead. I'm surprised this Canadian article should get this so wrong, particularly since Edward VIII was also King of Canada.Ds1994 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

From Camilla Parker Bowles: ''Overall, the majority of royal biographers have agreed that even if Charles and Camilla wanted to marry or did try for approval to get married, it would have been declined, because according to Charles's cousin and godmother Patricia Mountbatten, palace courtiers at that time found Camilla unsuitable as a wife for the future king. In 2005, she stated, "With hindsight, you can say that Charles should have married Camilla when he first had the chance. They were ideally suited, we know that now. But it wasn't possible."[…][55] "it wouldn't have been possible, not then."[…][56]'' Peter K Burian (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017
Please replace Merkel to Markle in section Acting career "Early in her career, Merkel had small guest roles on the television" 195.228.139.232 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you! Celia Homeford (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017
Reorganize this article so her relationship with Prince Harry is under "Personal Life," NOT as the second section of her article. She was an actress and a celebrity before her relationship, and there's no reason this article should be organized (deviating from the norm) with her relationship as the most important segment of information. It's not even a real category, unlike Personal Life, Career, Awards, Philanthropy, etc. 65.112.8.194 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. While I can see how it might be important that this article be chronological, it's also hard to accept that she'd be nearly this visible if not for her engagement. You made mention of "the norm." Can you link me to the policy or guideline this refers to?  City O f  Silver  05:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think editors should follow the articles on Princess Grace or Prince Philip for the lead. She is far better known for being Prince Harry's fiancée rather than anything else so that should be prominent. It's not a feminist question at all, the article on Prince Philip doesn't start with his Naval career but with his marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.201.195 (talk • contribs)
 * But the sections on their naval and acting careers come before the sections on their marriages. So, by your own logic and examples, this article should remain chronological, with the section on her acting career before the section on her personal life. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexist format in "Ancestry"
No offense to anyone, but the maternal ancestry should be the first sentence in the paragraph on "Ancestry", not the last. It is both sexist and racist, and an insult to her mother to put it as an afterthought addendum to her ancestry:

Markle's maternal great-great-great-grandfather was a slave on Georgia plantations before being emancipated with the abolition of slavery in 1865.[76][77]

Thankyou -- Thomas Barlow.
 * Are you her mother? I find it very hard to see that phrase and its placement as sexist... TJH2018 talk  17:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is only logical (and scientific) within a society claiming to be non-sexist, non-racist, and scientifically-oriented. There is no other way to construct that paragraph without it being both sexist, and possibly racist. And, yes, it is an insult to her mother, the matriarchal lineage, and women in general, whether her mother thinks that or not. Kindof like saying Barack Obama is African, thereby judging him by his skin-color only, when in fact he is Irish through the more stable lineage of the x-chromosome. Tiger Woods is Thai. Markle seems to be African through the matriarchal lineage. Y-chromosome is unstable, harder to trace historically, less certain (and apparently receding from humanity). Of course, some people might say that a slave's history is not as historically significant, but that would be an insult to all African Americans, many of whose ancestors built and sustained America (and Britain). As if to say a slave's history is inferior to the Bowes' and Hussey's of English aristocracy. I beg to differ. -- Thomas Barlow
 * I can't believe you're serious. Having her father's ancestry last would be sexist and an insult to her father, using that logic. Firebrace (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No offense to anyone, but the maternal ancestry should be the first sentence in the paragraph on "Ancestry", not the last. It is both sexist and racist, and an insult to her mother to put it as an afterthought addendum to her ancestry:
 * Markle's maternal great-great-great-grandfather was a slave on Georgia plantations before being emancipated with the abolition of slavery in 1865.[76][77]
 * Your sexism thinks the male lineage goes first. You are currently a sexist, and in the future a humanist. But not yet.
 * It is an insult to the matriarchal lineage, and women in general. The Y-chromosome is unstable, harder to trace historically, less certain (and apparently receding from humanity). Of course, some people like you might say that a slave's history is not as historically significant, but that would be an insult to all African Americans, many of whose ancestors built and sustained America (and Britain).
 * It's as if you are saying a slave's history is inferior to the Bowes' and Hussey's of English aristocracy. I beg to differ. -- Thomas Barlow
 * I would go even farther than that. Her father's side is far more than the 1/131072nd of his ancestry that is royal, or the 1/128th or so (estimate) which is English landed gentry who have provable royal descents. A German or English peasant is not inferior to the British aristocracy either. However, if I put information about the proportions of her ancestry that go to various European regions and classes, it will be reverted as non-notable or OR. Similarly, if we include a line like "Markle's maternal ancestry, being African American, is derived from the coastal regions of West and Central Africa between Senegal and Angola" it will also be reverted. Unless she takes a mitochondrial DNA test, in which case there is Wikipedia precedent for including a sentence on someone's matrilineal haplogroup. My own research is on her direct maternal line, but it's unpublished and can't go here on Wikipedia (yet). Satyadasa (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, tough one. There is no good reason for the father to go first (but I know nothing about chromosomes), besides the cousinship, I suppose, which is a poignant detail--but perhaps we're all each other's 17th cousins. Given how little information there is about the mother's lineage, one might as well put that one first, so it appears less to be an appendage, an afterthought; I wouldn't have a problem with it. BTW, I'm removing a short paragraph about all the presidents--the sourcing is lousy (a website) and apparently she shares this with millions of Americans. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Doesn't seem like a big deal--the paragraph appears better balanced to me. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is better this way. My own research is on her mother's side--and there are notable descents and cousins there too. However, it is unpublished OR at the moment, so cannot be cited on Wikipedia. When it is, the article will be more balanced. Until then it absolutely makes sense for the mother to go first just because there is more information on the father. Satyadasa (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal life
I'm proposing to change the relationship section mentioning Prince Harry in the title part to "Personal life" since that is the proper way of describing it. Any thoughts? Conspirasee1 (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest "Early relationship" be changed then to "Relationships" since the section mentions her ex husband as well as her fiance. Just a thought.... Conspirasee1 (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks better Surtsicna. Thank you for your collaboration. Conspirasee1 (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Question on possible future page move
Although it is probably WP:TOOSOON or WP:CBALL to speculate, I'm sort of curious what community consensus should be once Ms. Markle is given a royal title. It is understandable that we moved the Kate Middleton page to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge back in 2011. However, unlike the former Ms. Middleton, Markle was a notable actress before ever meeting Prince Harry. (Compare the very first version of this article, created ten years ago, versus the first ever version of the Kate Middleton page.)

But if we also "follow in the footsteps of Grace Kelly", note that the article is currently still at Grace Kelly and not at Grace, Princess of Monaco, per WP:COMMONAME since many sources still refer to her as the former. On the other hand, Markle has never been an A-list celebrity film star like Kelly was. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Deceased royal consorts are standardly located at their maiden names. 68.2.95.244 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no such convention, see WP:NCROY and Talk:Marie of Romania/Archive 1. PatGallacher (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have stated in the above section we should wait and see what happens. This situation may be more complicated though as for whatever reason Markle uses her middle name and not her first name Rachel, but when she is married she might be referred to as Rachel, Duchess of X. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, the page will move to "Meghan, Duchess of X" assuming past custom is followed and Harry is made a Duke on the eve of the wedding. Meghan Markle may have been a notable actress - but she was a fairly minor one, unlike Grace Kelly. She's much better known as Harry's fiancee and will be better known as a royal than she ever was as an actress. Nixon Now (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but as this may not be totally uncontroversial it might be better to put forward a formal move request after the wedding. We don't even know for sure that Harry will get a title, in which case her formal title would be "Princess Henry of Wales". PatGallacher (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is worth pointing out that it is very unlikely that Prince Harry will not be given a title. He will one day be the younger son of the King, and successively the only brother of the King. Such close proximity to the Crown would suggest he will be given a title. The question really is whether he will be made a Duke or an Earl, and the territorial designation of the title. He may well be made a Duke, but there is pressure to keep the number of Royal Dukes to a reasonable level (we already have six Royal Dukes, which some consider to be enough). We shall have to wait and see.Ds1994 (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. (I have added the Royalty portal inasmuch as she is engaged to a Royal, not to be jumping the gun.) kencf0618 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to make decisions now. Harry would be the first married prince in something like 700 yrs not to be given a peerage so I think that unlikely! In regard to Royal Dukes - remember that every present one bar Cambridge will be extinct or cease to be a Royal Dukedom in our lifetimes.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel the article should not be renamed immediately upon the marriage, as is often the case (groundlessly or not). Given her long-standing independent notability and the fact that this article had existed for 9 years before she even met Harry (something unprecedented when it comes to royal brides), we should probably wait to see how things develop. For all we know, she might still consider herself Meghan Markle rather than "Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk" (or whatever). The sources will certainly need some time to catch up. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life and family
Could you be more specific about this edit? We don't have separate articles for her siblings, thus it's logical to include some background information about them, especially since she's getting married to royalty and her family and relatives automatically become relevant, just like the relatives of other British princesses. On the other hand, I can't find a reason as to why that part violates BLP. It was already sourced with reliable sources. Keivan.f Talk 16:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that you need to be careful about using the term 'British princess(es)'. Meghan Markle will not be a 'British princess' when she marries Prince Harry. The wives of Princes of the United Kingdom simply adopt any styles of their husbands by courtesy. So if Prince Harry does not receive a peerage title, Meghan Markle will become HRH Princess Henry of Wales - the insertion of Harry's first name indicates that any royal style is derived from him, and him alone. Similarly if Prince Harry receives a peerage title then Meghan Markle will be styled HRH The Duchess/Countess of 'X'. Again, the territorial designation is derived from Prince Harry alone. Also the style 'HRH' does not denote that Meghan Markle will be a princess in her own right - it is a style or form of address that does not indicate the substantive possession of princely status. The most recent and famous example of this was HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who was given the style 'HRH' on the eve of his wedding to Princess Elizabeth in 1947, but this did not make him a Prince of the United Kingdom (this did finally happen by Royal Warrant in 1957). For further information on this topic, please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_princeDs1994 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No. That we do not have any article, means they are not notable to the encyclopedia. The details of their lives don't become relevant to encyclopedia biography about someone else, its just WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTTABLOID, as to Markle's bio.  Moreover, whenever we talk about tangentially related living persons NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies, and whenever we talk about rumored crime WP:BLPCRIME applies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Letters Patent issued on 30 November 1917 by King George V clarifies that, and I quote, "the title "Princess" and the use of the style "Royal Highness" has generally been restricted to the following persons: 1) the legitimate daughters of a British sovereign, 2) the legitimate male line granddaughters of a British sovereign, and 3) the wife of a British prince." Thus Meghan, and all of her predecessors (Diana, Camilla, Sarah, Sophie, and Catherine) are considered British princesses by marriage as they have all been married to British princes. They may or may not receive a title; an example would be the current Duchess of Gloucester, who was styled "Princess Richard of Gloucester" before her husband's subsequent accession to that title, but she has been a Princess of the United Kingdom since her first day of marriage. The only difference is that princesses of the blood can use the style "Princess" before their given names, just like the Princess Royal who can also be called Princess Anne, but princesses by marriage do not have that right; that's why the term "Princess Diana" is technically incorrect. The case about the British princes is totally different as the same Letters Patent that were issued in 1917, and remain in force today, limits the usage of that title to the princes of the blood. Prince Philip's case was entirely an exception, and the way that title was bestowed upon him doesn't apply to the case with the British princesses by marriage; thus it was an irrelevant example. Keivan.f  Talk 03:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I accept the points you are making, it is all perfectly clear in the various Royal warrants previously issued. The point I was making is that Meghan Markle and all others marrying into the Royal family are princesses 'by courtesy'. They are not substantive princesses of the Blood Royal, and they are not in succession in line to the Throne. This is why I respectfully used the phrase that we need to be 'careful' when using the term 'British princesses'. Also, I merely used the example of the Duke of Edinburgh to illustrate that the style 'HRH' does not automatically confer princely status on an individual. It is I agree strictly not relevant to the topic, rather an illustration of the complexities of this particular subject.Ds1994 (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see what you are trying to say but you are not correct. While MM will not be a princess suo jure she will be a princess by marriage (Jure maritus if you like). This is a substantive title (As is harry's) - not merely one of courtesy. [What legal status princely titles have is a discussion not for this thread]Garlicplanting (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, you can call it what you want: "by courtesy" or as Garlicplanting said "by marriage", but that won't change the fact that they are all British princesses. An example would be Prince George and Princess Charlotte's birth certificates, on which their mother's occupation has been mentioned as "Princess of the United Kingdom". Also, remember that all of the past queen consorts like Alexandra, Mary, and Elizabeth were also queen "by courtesy or marriage" unlike Victoria and Anne who were queen regnants (in their own rights), but the term "British queen" can somehow be used for all of them. Keivan.f  Talk 20:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keivan What I was trying to avoid was the misuse of Courtesy_title. It has a very particular meaning in the UK. A title gained from marriage to a prince (or indeed a peer) is not a courtesy title.[Fwiw, at least at present, the children of H & MM would have a courtesy title ie Lord/Lady.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, because they're legally entitled to that position, thus it's not just a courtesy title. Keivan.f  Talk 01:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hussey's ancestry
Why is improbable speculation about the ancestry of Hussey, Markle's ancestor, relevant in this article? I refer to the following: "For some decades, researchers have suggested Captain Hussey is descended from John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford, a descendant of King John, and this descent was widely reported in the media. Lord Hussey was beheaded in 1537 at the order of King Henry VIII. In the publication of the Skipper descent, the NEHGS say that the Hussey descent "seems highly unlikely"."

Fine for the article on Hussey, but really a bridge too far here. Cl ea n Co py talk 21:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that the editor who added this back explained why he did so in his edit summary: "Christopher Hussey is not noteworthy on his own. The reason for his inclusion in this article is the disputed/debunked royal descent he brings to Meghan Markle. Editors are likely to create a mess, adding it again, if it is not explained here." That seems reasonable, but I wonder if including the information in a comment, so that editors would see it but not users, might not be sufficient. Not a big issue, however. Cl ea n Co py talk 23:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I see it as "defensive editing", especially in the early stages of a person's notability when people are likely to copy-paste every sort of garbage from the tabloid media and the genealogical fan fiction that is produced. I get your point about putting it in a comment, and would concur with you at the point that the section stabilizes. Satyadasa (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If needed, this "defensive editing" for newcomers could more suitably be noticed in hidden text comme-il-faut. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One editor has  removed the ancestry  section altogether. This  is  appalling we think. The editor will NOT  acknowledge that Markle's  own family are aware of her descent from Captain Christopher Hussey (died 1686). Let alone her  descent from British  aristocracy   and King Edward III -  all published in major  USA  and UK  newspapers  and TV  networks.  Let's try to change the mind of this  editor!Srbernadette (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Question
Good day! My question is: is she African American or not? In Wikidata ethnic group African American. This correct? Thanks for the answer!--91.210.109.220 (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * She considers herself biracial. Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

pregnant
Sources say Megan Markle is pregnant with harry's baby this could make another royal air to the throne creating a longer generation to the throne equaling an american line in the royals making america more connected to United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiebean13 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are all tabloids at best. Also, William has two kids and one on the way. Barring anything really crazy, Harry and his heirs will never see the crown.  Eric Cable  !  Talk  18:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on article section order: ancestry, filmography, and humanitarian work
Should the section on ancestry be moved to after the sections on humanitarian work and/or filmography? Thsmi002 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't ancestry usually go with the early life section? In the rare cases where we have this information, it considered an extension of her parents. I don't know of any MOS clarification of this, but this is how we usually see it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Attached is family tree as published by the UK Times on December 3rd, 2017 - two  days before Surtsicna  decided that the Markle  family tree was of no interest to Wikipedia  readers  -  the information being dismissed by this editor  as "irrelevant"  to Markle's  own family too! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-markles-jonesboro-roots-q2pkszld.q  Very sad.Srbernadette (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Religion
Does anyone know what religion she is if she has one? In marrying a member of the Church of England in a Church of England chapel or church, is she to be received in the Anglican Communion prior to the wedding or not?WPF2008 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

News reports state that she will be baptised and confirmed by the Church of England prior to the wedding, which suggests that she was not previously baptised. PatGallacher (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Baptized *into* the Church of England, which means she's converting to Anglicanism. She may have been baptized in the past but not as an Anglican. Nixon Now (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * World Vision is evangelical. Did she become involved with them through her church?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Markle, who attended a Catholic school as a child but identifies as a Protestant, will be baptized and confirmed into the Church of England before the wedding, Harry's spokesman said." Nixon Now (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not only will the baptism and confirmation into the Church of England be fast tracked, her application for British citizenship will be fast tracked as well. It should also be noted that the Church of England does not regard itself as 'protestant', rather reformed catholic. The worldwide Anglican communion is a wide church, and the Church of England sits well to the right of the spectrum.Ds1994 (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * From vaguely Protestant to joining the Church of England because you're marrying a Royal is quite a shift, but presumably both she, Harry, and the institutions involved know what's involved. kencf0618 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The terminology intrigues me. I would have said that you can be baptised into the Church, into Christianity, but not into any specific church. I’m a convert to Catholicism from an Anglican background and I was very specifically not rebaptised on my reception because, in the Catholic understanding, it’s a one-time only deal, if valid. The Anglican form of baptism is valid for Catholics; I’d be very surprised to learn if it was different the other way round, and would guess that she has not in fact been baptised. She is already listed as an American Anglican, which seems a lot like jumping the gun to me.151.78.139.50 (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)